do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2936/98 by David MARTIN to the Commission. Reduction of VAT on certain labour-intensive services
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MARTIN DAVID
Subjects: VAT, building industry, job creation, wage cost

C 135/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

The Council is looking forward to cooperate with the new Government in Tirana, especially in the areas of
economic and democratic reform, and the enhancement of internal security. It made clear the absolute
necessity of progress in the national reconciliation process, and of the adoption of the constitution, and
urged all political forces, and in particular the leadership of the Democratic Party to live up to their
responsibility towards the Albanian people.

The Council welcomed the successful holding of the International Conference in Tirana on 30 October,
which took stock of cooperation between the International Community and Albania and mapped out
cooperation with the new Government in its pledge to restore democracy, security and political and
economic stability to the country.

(1999/C 135/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2936/98

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Reduction of VAT on certain labour-intensive services

Could the Commission say what progress has been made on the Communication submitted by the
Commission on 12 November 1997 to encourage job creation at a local level and combat certain types of
‘undeclared’ work by reducing VAT on labour-intensive services such as building renovation etc.?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the communication on the possibility of a
reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services for an experimental period and on an optional basis which
it presented to the Council on 12 December 1997 (1) is still being discussed by that institution.

The Commission has now begun work on a proposal for an instrument on reduced rates of VAT.

It would be premature at this stage to discuss how activities such as building renovation should be treated
for VAT purposes. This matter will be addressed during the work on which the Commission is currently
engaged.

(1) SEC(97) 2089 final.

(1999/C 135/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Delays on the part of the Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs

The Ecofin Council has approved the allocation of EUR 420 million to various measures aimed at SMEs,
including a loan-guarantee fund requiring a financial contribution from the Member States.

The Italian Ministry for Industry has initiated a yet to be concluded legislative procedure for the adoption
of a decree establishing a national guarantee fund to match the European fund. The Italian fund should
have been available by mid-September, but the decree is not expected to be issued in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3060/98 by Roberto MEZZAROMA Milan Malpensa 2000
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MEZZAROMA
Subjects: Lombardy, air traffic, air transport, airport, application of EU law, carrier, intra-EU transport, market access

C 320/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.11.1999

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

No dog is allowed on the Eurostar because of the United Kingdom’s current rabies legislation which also
applies to guide dogs.

Although the movement of traded dogs and cats is currently harmonised, this harmonisation does not
currently extend to pet animals travelling with their owners. The Commission has not yet put forward
proposals governing this latter aspect.

In the present state of Community law this is therefore a typical case of a conflict between the fundamental
right to free movement under Article 8A of the EC Treaty and legitimate exceptions to this right for reasons of
public health. Whether such exceptions are justified and proportional to their objectives has to be judged in
each individual case.

The Commission is aware of the United Kingdom government’s commitment to review current quarantine
laws and of the conclusions of a recent scientific opinion obtained in connection with this review. The
Commission has recently requested the United Kingdom authorities to provide it with details of its proposals
following this review and the timetable for any necessary legislation.

(1999/C 320/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3060/98

by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Milan Malpensa 2000

The Commission has rejected the decree concerning the entry into service of the new Milan airport as
incompatible with Community law, in accordance with its institutional obligations.

To avoid an action brought by Italy against this decision at European level having to be settled by the European
Court, and in view of the fact that the Committee on Competition and the Committee on Transport have
differing views on the matter, even if they only have a consultative role, would the Commision outline the
main points on which a new negotiating position might be based, and how it intends to manage the crucial
problem of transition to ensure that Fiumicino airport does not become a secondary hub, subordinate to the
new Malpensa airport?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1998)

The intervention of the Commission in relation to the air traffic rules proposed for the Milan airport system
was exclusively motivated by the need to ensure respect for Community law and it was based upon the specific
provisions of Council Regulation No 2408/92 concerning the rights of Member States to regulate the
distribution of traffic between airports within an airport system, i.e. serving the same conurbation. So long as
Community law is respected, Member States are free to determine the objectives and priorities of their airport
policy including the development and status of a particular airport.

The application of the law, as the Honourable Member will know, is not a subject for negotiation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3059/98 by Michèle LINDEPERG to the Commission. Return of Bosnian refugees
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, LINDEPERG
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU aid, UNHCR, ethnic group, protection of minorities, public safety, refugee, residence permit, return migration, settlement of disputes

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/177

Would the Commission not agree that this measure aimed at Southern Italy discriminates against
companies in other parts of the country which would like to take on new workers but are not eligible
for any form of help in doing so?

How does it intend to ensure that Italy does not in future (cid:145)forget(cid:146) to notify national measures?

Lastly, would it not agree that Italian SMEs should be better protected, so as to ensure that they are not
penalised by the mistakes made by their own government?

Reply

(7 December 1998)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that it is not part of its remit to
give an opinion on the compliance with Community law of measures taken by the Member States.

Under Article 155 of the EC Treaty, the task of ensuring that the Treaty and secondary legislation are
applied is the responsibility of the Commission.

The Council is therefore unable to adopt a position on the various points in the question put by the
Honourable Member.

(1999/C 118/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3039/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Aluminium pollution

Does the Commission have any information about the health effects of pollution from aluminium dust on
roads, and/or has it initiated any research on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

No, the Commission does not have information about the health effects of pollution from aluminium dust
on roads and has not initiated research into this matter.

(1999/C 118/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/98

by MichŁle Lindeperg (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Return of Bosnian refugees

The general peace agreement on Bosnia-Hercegovina, or Dayton Accord, signed in Paris in December
1995 aims to redress the wrong inflicted on refugees driven into exile by mass expulsions during the
conflict by guaranteeing their right to return freely to their homes.

In most of the countries that accepted refugees from Bosnia-Hercegovina, the temporary protection or
right to stay granted to the latter has been, or soon will be, suspended. The host countries use the existence
of the Dayton Accord to justify sending refugees back to regions where people of their nationality are now
in the majority, regardless of those refugees(cid:146) place of origin.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3055/98 by John CUSHNAHAN to the Commission. Manchester United
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: CUSHNAHAN, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, application of EU law, professional sport, purchase, sports body, television













EUR-Lex - 91998E3055 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3055

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3055/98 by John CUSHNAHAN to the Commission. Manchester United  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0077 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3055/98by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission(8 October 1998)Subject: Manchester UnitedWhat action will the Commission take to ensure that the proposed acquisition of Manchester United by BSkyB does not conflict with EU sport broadcasting policy?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission(11 December 1998)The proposed acquisition of Manchester United by BSkyB is not an isolated event. Such operations, involving television companies owning sport clubs, have become a frequent practice in Europe (as was already the case in the United States). The Commission keeps a close watch on all instances of interpenetration between the world of sport and the audiovisual industry and will ensure that such acquisitions comply with Community rules, where appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2980/98 by David MARTIN to the Commission. The purchase of cars in the European single market
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MARTIN DAVID
Subjects: Netherlands, United Kingdom, complaint to the Commission, consumer protection, distributive trades, infringement of EU law, motor car, motor vehicle industry, restriction on competition, single market

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/149

(1999/C 135/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2980/98

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: The purchase of cars in the European single market

Following the difficulties that my constituents have encountered in purchasing European motor cars, with
UK specifications, from suppliers in the Netherlands and elsewhere can the Commission say what action it
is taking to ensure a genuine European single market in the purchase of cars?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions P-1957/97 by
Mr Skinner (1), E-3298/97 by Mr Watts (2), E-1851/98 by Mr Mather (3) and E-2534/98 by Mr Mather (4).

(1) OJ C 21, 22.1.1998.
(2) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.
(3) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 90.
(4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 149.

(1999/C 135/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2983/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of the excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland and does it consider
that this is due to lack of competition in the Irish market?

(1999/C 135/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland

Will the Commission state whether the Irish market for motor vehicle insurance is affected by any
derogations from EU competition policy or other legislation and can the Commission state when such
derogations come to an end?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2169/98 of 8 October 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2004/98
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, common wheat, export refund

L 273/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2169/98

of 8 October 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the
invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2004/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2094/98 (4), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund and/or the
tax for the export of common wheat to certain ACP States
was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No
2004/98 (5);

Whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95
provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the
tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of
the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No

1501/95; whereas in that case a contract is awarded to any
than the
tenderer whose bid is equal
maximum refund, as well as to any tenderer whose bid
relates to an export tax;

to or

lower

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not
delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its
chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 2 to 8 October 1998, pursuant
to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No
the maximum refund on exportation of
2004/98,
common wheat shall be ECU 38,00 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 October 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 266, 1. 10. 1998, p. 61.
(5) OJ L 258, 22. 9. 1998, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3039/98 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Aluminium pollution
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: air quality, aluminium, environmental research, metal pollution, public health, road network

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/177

Would the Commission not agree that this measure aimed at Southern Italy discriminates against
companies in other parts of the country which would like to take on new workers but are not eligible
for any form of help in doing so?

How does it intend to ensure that Italy does not in future (cid:145)forget(cid:146) to notify national measures?

Lastly, would it not agree that Italian SMEs should be better protected, so as to ensure that they are not
penalised by the mistakes made by their own government?

Reply

(7 December 1998)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that it is not part of its remit to
give an opinion on the compliance with Community law of measures taken by the Member States.

Under Article 155 of the EC Treaty, the task of ensuring that the Treaty and secondary legislation are
applied is the responsibility of the Commission.

The Council is therefore unable to adopt a position on the various points in the question put by the
Honourable Member.

(1999/C 118/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3039/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Aluminium pollution

Does the Commission have any information about the health effects of pollution from aluminium dust on
roads, and/or has it initiated any research on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

No, the Commission does not have information about the health effects of pollution from aluminium dust
on roads and has not initiated research into this matter.

(1999/C 118/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/98

by MichŁle Lindeperg (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Return of Bosnian refugees

The general peace agreement on Bosnia-Hercegovina, or Dayton Accord, signed in Paris in December
1995 aims to redress the wrong inflicted on refugees driven into exile by mass expulsions during the
conflict by guaranteeing their right to return freely to their homes.

In most of the countries that accepted refugees from Bosnia-Hercegovina, the temporary protection or
right to stay granted to the latter has been, or soon will be, suspended. The host countries use the existence
of the Dayton Accord to justify sending refugees back to regions where people of their nationality are now
in the majority, regardless of those refugees(cid:146) place of origin.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3012/98 by Doeke EISMA Discrimination against the blind
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, animal disease, cross-channel connection, domestic animal, facilities for people with disabilities, free movement of persons, import restriction, physically disabled person, public health, rail transport

6.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 320/21

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties faced by Irish farmers due in part to the prevailing poor weather
conditions. A number of measures have been taken to advance payments to the Member States. For beef
premia, there is an increase from 60 to 80 % of the advance to Member States as well as a change in timing to
16 October 1998 for payment of the advance. For sheep premia, the regulation fixing the second advance of
the premium has been adopted in good time allowing the payment to be made to producers from 15 October
1998. In both cases it will be for the Member State to make payments to farmers as soon as possible.

In the case of compensatory allowances normal advances to Ireland are available and it will be for the Member
State to make payments as soon as possible.

(1999/C 320/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Unfair allocation of banana import licences

In its proposal for a regulation implementing the new organisation of the market in bananas, which is due to
enter into force on 1 January 1999, does the Commission intend to continue with the unfair arrangements for
allocating banana import licences?

Under the current, unfair arrangements, the big multinationals have a monopoly over primary imports which
gives them control of virtually the entire banana market, whereas the EU’s own importers receive almost no
import licences and so have to buy the bananas off the big American companies at excessive prices.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

In accordance with the Council¢s wishes, licences will be allocated on the basis of past activity. Import rights
will thus be given to operators who have actually imported bananas during a specified reference period.

None the less, the Commission plans to increase considerably the percentage of licences reserved for
µnewcomers¢, which should help small operators in particular to enter the market in banana imports.

(1999/C 320/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Discrimination against the blind

Guide dogs for the blind may not be transported on Eurostar, which makes it difficult for blind people to travel
on the train.

Does the Commission share my view that this measure discriminates against the blind?

Does it conflict with European legislation and/or with European fundamental principles? If so, what steps does
the Commission intend to take?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2178/98 of 8 October 1998 fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1907/98
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, award of contract, import, maize

L 273/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2178/98

of 8 October 1998

fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in connection
with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1907/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article
12(1) thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the maximum reduc-
tion in the duty on maize imported into Spain was
opened pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
1907/98 (3);

Whereas, pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1839/95 (4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No
1963/95 (5), the Commission, acting under the procedure
laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import
duty; whereas
in fixing this maximum the criteria
provided for in Article 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No
1839/95 must be taken into account; whereas a contract is

awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less
than the maximum reduction in the duty;

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum reduction in the import duty
being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not
delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its
chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 2 to 8 October 1998, pursuant
to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No
1907/98, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize
imported shall be ECU 67,95 per tonne and be valid for a
total maximum quantity of 4 000 tonnes.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 October 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 248, 8. 9. 1998, p. 19.
(4) OJ L 177, 28. 7. 1995, p. 4.
(5) OJ L 189, 10. 8. 1995, p. 22.